Ex parte GRINDATTO et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1997-2284                                                         
          Application 08/278,107                                                       


          carbide foam of an element selected from a recited Markush                   
          group, which is useful as a catalyst or catalyst support.                    
          Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows:                                
               1. Carbide foam of an element selected from the group                   
          consisting of Si, Mo, W, Re, V, Nb, Ta, Ti, Cr, Ni, rare earth               
          elements and actinide elements, for use as a catalyst or                     
          catalyst support having open pores including macropores of a                 
          pore diameter between 50 and 500 Fm and mesopores of a pore                  
          diameter between 30 and 50 Angstroms in the form of a three-                 
          dimensional network of interconnected cages, a density between               
          0.03 and 0.1 g/cm , a BET specific surface area between 20 and3                                                           
          100 M /g, no more than 0.1% by weight residual said element2                                                                       
          and carbide crystallites of a size between 40 and 400                        
          Angstroms.                                                                   
                                    THE REFERENCE                                      
          Welsh et al. (Welsh)           4,536,358          Aug. 20,                   
          1985                                                                         
                                    THE REJECTION                                      
               Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as                  
          being unpatentable over Welsh taken with appellants’ admitted                
          prior art.                                                                   
                                       OPINION                                         
               We have carefully considered all of the arguments                       
          advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with                       
          appellants that the aforementioned rejection is not well                     


                                           2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007